Alistair Douglas v. His Majesty’s Advocate [2023] HCJAC 32

Note of appeal against sentence:- The appellant pled guilty to being involved in serious organised crime relating to serious offences involving drugs and firearms for a period 27 March 2020 to 1 June 2020. The appellant accepted (1) being concerned in the supplying of diazepam, cocaine and diamorphine; (2) being in possession of an encrypted electronic device for the purpose of communicating about serious organized crime; and (3) he delivered a package containing a handgun and ammunition to a co-accused, Gilmour. The appellant was sentenced to 5 years and 3 months discounted from a headline sentence of 6 years on account of the plea of guilty. For his co-accused Gilmour and another co-accused, Mullen, the headline sentences were 10 years. The appellant appealed against the sentence imposed it being contended that the headline sentence selected was excessive and offended against the principles of comparative justice when considered against what his co-accused had received as sentences for what was significantly more serious offending, including being guilty of a charge of conspiracy to murder and both co-accused operating at a significantly higher level in the organised crime group. It was accepted on behalf of the appellant that a lengthy sentence of imprisonment was inevitable and appropriate, however, it was submitted that the headline sentence was excessive having regard to the appellant’s limited role, his lack of previous offending and his personal circumstances, particularly when these factors were compared with both co-accused, their respective involvement and their previous offending history. Here the court refused the appeal. The court observed that the appellant’s headline sentence was 40 per cent lower than those selected for his two co-accused the sentences for each of whom was described as appearing to be “relatively lenient.” The court reiterated that, whilst the principle of comparative justice is an important one, where various accused are being sentenced on the same indictment, the principle has to be applied “on a somewhat broad basis.”